Gurmeet Singh And ANR v. Satnam Singh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-7732-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.01.2026 Gurmeet Singh and Another ... Appellants

Versus

Satnam Singh @ Satti and Others ... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Janak Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajvinder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) CM-25957-CII-2016 1.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 138 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. However, the claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the present appeal.

FAO-7732-2016 (O&M) 2.

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') vide award dated 17.10.2015 on account of death of Amarjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased').

3.

Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as

-2recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

4.

The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

Sr. No.

Heads Compensation Awarded Notional monthly income ₹3,000/- Annual income [₹3,000 x 12] = ₹36,000/- Multiplier - 9 [₹36,000 x 9] = ₹3,24,000/- Loss of consortium ₹1,00,000/- Funeral expenses ₹25,000/- Total Compensation ₹4,49,000/- Interest 7.5% per annum 5.

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the deceased in the present case was a homemaker and the Tribunal has assessed her notional income as ₹3,000/- per month which is on the lower side inasmuch as at the relevant point of time the minimum wages for an unskilled worker were also more than the income assessed by the Tribunal. It is further contended that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of time. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of '9' which, as per age of the deceased who was 55 years of age, ought to have been '11'. It is further the contention that the Tribunal has not made any addition towards loss of future prospects.

Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads as well as under the head 'loss of consortium' is also not in consonance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kirti & Anr. vs.

-3Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 478], Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].

6.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that while calculating the amount of compensation the Tribunal has not applied any deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is further the contention that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

7.

Heard.

8.

Admittedly, no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. The argument of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the income of the deceased, who was a homemaker, ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of time, deserves to be accepted. In the case of Kirti (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, while emphasizing upon the contribution made by a homemaker and the services rendered by a woman in a household, observed that there can be no exact calculation or formula that can ascertain the actual value provided by a homemaker gratuitously. In order to streamline the calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them for the purposes of assessing the compensation, the following principles were laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court :

-4- "42. Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation which can be summarized as follows:

a.

Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.

b.

Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance.

It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.

c.

Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

d.

The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the

-5particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally.

e.

The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation."

9.

In the present case, considering the extensive contribution of the deceased in the household and in the absence of any evidence regarding her exact income, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker at the relevant point of time, which were ₹8,524/- per month. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is assessed as ₹8,600/- per month rounded off. 10.

Further, the argument of learned counsel for respondent No.3Insurance Company that the Tribunal has not applied any deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased deserves to be accepted. There are two dependents in the present case hence, as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), a deduction of 1/3rd would be applicable.

11.

The Tribunal has applied a multiplier of '9'. The deceased in the present case was 55 years of age hence, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), a multiplier of '11' would be applicable.

12.

Further, the Tribunal has not made any addition towards loss of future prospects, which ought to have been made in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirti (supra). Since the deceased was 55 years of age at the time of accident, an addition of 10% would be

-6applicable towards loss of future prospects as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 13.

Further, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head 'loss of consortium' are not as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra). Hence, the claimant-appellants would be entitled to ₹18,000/- (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of estate and ₹18,000/- (₹15,000 + 20% increase) towards funeral expenses as also to ₹48,000/- each (₹40,000 + 20% increase) towards loss of spousal and parental consortium. 14.

Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under : Sr. No.

Heads Compensation Awarded Monthly Income ₹8,600/- Annual Income ₹1,03,200/- [₹8,600 x 12] Deduction - 1/3rd ₹68,800/- [₹1,03,200 - ₹34,400] Future Prospects - 10% ₹75,680/- [₹68,800 + ₹6,880] Multiplier - 11 ₹8,32,480/- [₹75,680 x 11] Loss of estate ₹18,000/- Funeral expenses ₹18,000/- Loss of consortium (i) Parental [₹48,000/- x 1] ₹48,000/- (ii) Spousal's ₹48,000/- (Total ₹96,000/-) Total Compensation ₹9,64,480/- 15.

The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. However, the claimant-appellants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the present appeal.

-716.

In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [AIR 2025 SC 1713 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 567], after calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be transferred by the Insurance Company in the bank account(s) of the claimants within six weeks from today and the apportionment thereof shall be as per the percentage directed by the Tribunal. The particulars of the bank account(s) alongwith the requisite documents(s) in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimant-appellants to the Insurance company within a period of two weeks from the date of this order and needful shall be done by the Insurance Company after verification thereof within four weeks thereafter alongwith upto-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.

17.

In view of the above discussion, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the present appeal stands allowed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO 29.01.2026 jk